Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7116
- 1 -
WP No. 10507 of 2014
C/W WP No. 29067 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10507 OF 2014 (GM-DRT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 29067 OF 2014(GM-RES)
IN WP 10507/2014
BETWEEN:
M/S. ADARSHA EDUCATIONAL AND
SOCIAL SERVICE TRUST (R)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFICE
AT NO.151, 15TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560055
REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURE/TRUSTEE
SRI.H.N.GOPINATH
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SODDARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1.
THE HONBLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
NRUPUTUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.
2.
SRI LAKSHMI MAHILA
SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA
HEAD OFFICE; NO.49
9TH CROSS
1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR
BANGALORE-560078
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJA S
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 10507 of 2014
C/W WP No. 29067 of 2014
3.
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
SRI LAKSHMI MAHILA SAHAKARA
BANK NIYAMITHA
1ST PHASE, J.PNAGAR
BANGALORE-560078
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4.
M/S PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT
EDUCATIONAL TRUST
REGISTRED TRUST
HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE
AT "GANESH" S-2/111
2ND MAIN ROAD, SFS COLONY
OPP.MOTHER DIARY
YELHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE
REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SHRI C.R.CHANDRAN.
5.
J.C.KALA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST
B-1, K.H.B.COLONY
PUTTENAHALLI, YELHANKA
BANGALORE-64
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SACHINDRA KARANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3:
SRI. L.S. CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4:
SRI. G.V. CHNADRA SHEKHAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. APEKSHA D, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDEROF THE HON'BLE DRT/1ST
RESPONDENT DATED.10.1.2014 ON I.A.NO.8/2011 IN IR
NO.3691/2010 I.E. ANNXURE-N AS ILLEGAL & UNJUST & TO &
ALLOW THE IA.8/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
HON'BLE DRT/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE MAIN PETITION
- 3 -
WP No. 10507 of 2014
C/W WP No. 29067 of 2014
I.E.I.R.NO.3691/2010 & CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE SAID
MAIN PETITION TO FILE.
IN WP 29067/2014
BETWEEN
J.C.KALA EDUCATIONAL
AND CHARITABLE TRUST (R)
NO.B-1, K.H.B COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE
SRI SHYAMASUNDAR
S/O OF SRI J K NEELAKANTA BHATTA
AGED 48 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. G.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. APEKSHA D, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 .
ADARSHA EDUCATIONAL
AND SOCIAL SERVICE TRUST
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.151
15TH CROSS, ADARSHA BHAVAN
MALLESHWARAM
BANGLORE-560003
REPTD. BY ITS TRUSTEES
SRI M K RANGASWAMAY AND
SRI P G PURUSHOTHAM.
2 .
SHRI M K RANGSWAMY
S/O LATE SRI M S KRISHNA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
RESIDINGAT FLAT NO.6
GURUDHAMAN APARTMENT
17TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560003.
- 4 -
WP No. 10507 of 2014
C/W WP No. 29067 of 2014
3 .
SHRI P G PURUSHOTHAM
AGE:MAJOR, NO.151
15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560003.
4 .
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN
M S BUILIDING, BANGALORE-560001.
5 .
THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
KHB BUILDING, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560009.
6 .
THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
YELAHANKA PROJECT (PLANNING)
SUB-DIVISION OFFICE
YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN
BANGALORE-560064
REPTD BY SRI C KRISHNAMURTHY A.E.E
7 .
THE SUB-REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR
RUDRESH CHAMBERS
YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN
BANGALORE-560064.
8 .
THE SUB-REISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR
HEBBAL, BANGALORE.
9 .
SRI LAKSHMI MAHILA
SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITHA
HEAD OFFICE NO.4
EAST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560004
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICE
- 5 -
WP No. 10507 of 2014
C/W WP No. 29067 of 2014
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SIDDARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3:
SRI. D.S. SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R4, R7, AND R8:
SRI. H.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6:
SRI. K. SACHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE S226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT
TEH
R-7
TO
REGISTER
THE
SALE/TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE
AS
ANNEX-H
BEARING
DOCUMENT
NO.-
4045/2010-11 SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATION ON 23.12.2010
FORTHWITH.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
IN WP NO.10507/2014
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru dated 10.01.2014
vide Annexure-N.
By the said order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has
refused to condone the delay in filing the application under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by the petitioner.
- 6 -
It is not in dispute that as against the order passed
by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, a statutory appeal is provided. The
petitioner would therefore have to avail the remedy of
filing an appeal.
However, learned Senior counsel Sri K. Suman, for
the petitioner contended that the existence of an
alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for the exercise
of jurisdiction. He places reliance on the decision rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI
U.M.RAMESH RAO AND OTHERS vs. UNION BANK OF
INDIA (FORMERLY CORPORATION BANK) - ILR 2021 KAR
2196.
In the above mentioned decision, the Division Bench
has stated as follows:
“But, normally, the High Court should not
entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that
there is something more in a case, something
going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer,
something which would show that it would be a
- 7 -
case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to
force him to adopt the remedies provided by the
statute. But, if the High Court had entertained a
petition despite availability of an alternative
remedy, it would not be justifiable for the High
Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non-
exhaustion of statutory remedies, unless the
High Court finds that factual disputes are
involved and it would not be desirable to deal
with them in a writ petition.”
6.
It is to be stated hear that it is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner had not availed of any loan
and it was its erstwhile Managing Director, who is no
more, along with his relatives had made an application for
grant of loan and this loan had never been obtained by the
Trust and therefore, the Trust would not be liable for
repayment of the loan.
7.
As observed by the Division Bench, whenever factual
disputes are involved, it would not be desirable to deal
with them in a writ petition. If the arguments of the
learned Senior counsel would have to be entertained, this
- 8 -
Court would be embarking upon an enquiry to record a
finding of fact as to whether the petitioner / Trust had
availed the loan or not. This is clearly impermissible.
8.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is
dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an
appeal as provided under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.
9.
Since, the petitioner was litigating before this Court
by way of this writ petition, the time spent in prosecuting
this writ petition will have to be necessarily excluded if the
petitioner were to prefer an appeal within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. If the appeal is filed as aforesaid, the Appellate
Tribunal shall decide the appeal on merits and will not
insist on the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the
appeal.
11. It is needless to state that the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal would be at liberty to consider the
validity or invalidity, correctness or otherwise of the order
- 9 -
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with
law.
IN WP NO.29067/2014
12. This writ petition
is filed for
a direction
to
Sub-Registrar / respondent No.7 to register the Sale
Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.
13. It is the case of the petitioner that the Lakshmi
Mahila Sahakara Bank Niyamitha had brought property
bearing No.CA Site No.14 situated at Yelahanka New
Town, Bengaluru for auction alleging that there was a
default committed by respondent No.1 / Trust.
14. The petitioner is admittedly the successful bidder in
the auction and the Sale Certificate has also been issued in
its favour. However, the Sub-registrar has refused to
register the Sale Certificate on the ground that
